Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Planning & Development
Services
TO: |
David L.
Corliss, City Manager |
FROM: |
Planning &
Development Services Staff |
|
|
Date: |
March 19, 2014 |
RE: |
Rental Expansion |
Consideration of developing a new rental license and inspection program
has been years in the making. The
history and contents of the five most recent drafts of Ordinance No. 8840 is
provided at http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/rental-registration-expansion-proposal.
Subsequent to staff’s February 26, 2014 memorandum outlining
Commissioner Farmer’s proposed Draft 4 of Ordinance No. 8840, Commissioner
Farmer asked staff to draft a 5th
version to re-instate the RS zoned properties into the program and schedule
several “pilot” inspections with property owners he had identified as willing
participants. The “pilot” inspections were to be completed using the proposed
Draft 4 code standards and the revised Inspection Form and Checklist (dated
2/26/2014).
Below is the summary of the five inspections completed on March 11th
and March 12th.
Inspection 1
Type of Structure: A two story single detached dwelling unit built in
1900 with 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and an uninhabitable rock foundation basement.
Duration of Inspection: 37 minutes
Violations Cited Under Draft 4 Ordinance:
·
The
basement stairs would require a handrail; however, the configuration of stairs
makes this requirement impractical to complete.
In addition to above cited violations, staff noted the following
violations of the Property Maintenance Code.
Inspections 2 & 3
Type of Structure: A one story duplex built in 1977 on a slab
foundation. Each dwelling unit had 2
bedrooms and 1 bathroom.
Duration of Inspection: 10 minutes for entire structure
Violations Cited Under Draft 4 Ordinance:
Inspection 4
Type of Structure: A detached two story built in 1910 containing one dwelling unit with 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom and a stone foundation.
Duration of Inspection: 33 minutes
Violations Cited Under Draft 4 Ordinance:
1. 6-13a14(a)(22): (first floor bedroom)
None of the windows were operable. Any window, not fixed, must be easily
openable.
2. 6-13a14(a)(24): (first floor bedroom)
Smoke detector missing battery.
3. 6-13a14(a)(22): (second floor east
bedroom) None of the windows were operable. Any window, not fixed, must be
easily openable.
4. 6-13a14(a)(2): (rear porch) The porch
is supported by slabs of limestone. The supports have no footings and the
slabs at north corner are sloping significantly away from the porch.
In addition to above cited violations, staff noted the following
violations of the Property Maintenance Code.
5. Section 302.10 (exterior yard) In the
rear yard is an empty keg, a dilapidated foosball table and a large painted
piece of plywood that must be removed.
Inspection 5
Type of Structure: A 1-˝ story detached dwelling built in 1920 containing one dwelling unit with 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms on a stone/brick foundation.
Duration of Inspection: 34 minutes
Violations Cited:
1. 6-13a14(a)(24): (first floor bedroom)
Missing smoke detector.
2. 6-13a14(a)(24): (first floor bedroom)
Missing smoke detector.
3. 6-13a14(a)(24): (first floor bedroom)
Missing smoke detector.
4. 6-13a14(a)(20): First floor - living
room (north wall) –– Missing receptacle cover plate.
5. 6-13a14(a)(4): (second floor porch roof) There is a door that
leads out to the roof of the first floor enclosed porch. The door has
been installed at some point to provide access. The guard rail is unsafe
due to lack of vertical balusters and adequate support for posts. There are
large openings due to there being two horizontal boards acting as guard
rails around the perimeter of the roof. I Informed the owner the minimum
requirement would be to rebuild guardrails and add code compliant balusters for
the terrace to be used. Another option would be to remove the door thus
eliminating the use. A major life safety concern.
6. 6-13a14(a)(4) (second
floor staircase) –– The guard rail around the stair case opening on the
second floor is only 24 inches high. Informed the owner that the guard
rail must be code compliant with appropriate vertical balusters.
In addition to above cited violations, staff noted the following
violations of the Property Maintenance Code.
8. Section 304.5 of PMC: (basement) There is a large horizontal crack
just above half way point of height of the wall that runs east to west along
the south wall. The crack is the result of the wall beginning to show
movement. Eventually, appropriate repairs will be required to provide
additional support and prevent additional movement/buckling.
9. Section 603.1 of PMC: (basement) There is a listed appliance connector
penetrating the floor assembly to provide gas to the stove. The connector
has not been tested for this application therefore it cannot go through the
floor assembly.
Pilot Program Statistics and
Findings
As previously discussed in other memorandums; the type, size and age of
a structure will significantly impact the time it will take to inspect a
dwelling unit. A single detached
structure that has never been inspected will most likely require staff to spend
a minimum of 30 minutes to complete the inspection. A duplex or apartments within a building that
are in good condition may only require a 10 to 15 minute inspection per
unit. A very large congregate living
structure could take an hour to complete.
The “pilot” inspection results confirm staff’s previous estimates on
how much time certain types of structures will require on their initial
inspection. The three detached dwelling
units inspected were built in the early 1900’s and took an average of 35
minutes to inspect. In contrast, the duplex which was viewed to be in the top
5% of all dwelling units staff has previously inspected took only 5 minutes per
side for a total of 10 minutes. Staff
believes the sampling of future dwelling units in the proposed ordinance will
produce similar inspection time variances. The “pilot” inspections yielded an
average inspection time of 23 minutes. As noted above, the duplex considerably
reduced the overall average time required to complete the 5 inspections.
In addition to the amount of time required to complete an inspection,
there will be time needed to enter the results of the inspection in Innoprise. It is estimated that an inspection with an
average of 5 violations will take approximately 15 minutes to enter the
results.
Drive time must also be accounted for and can vary significantly due to
location of next inspection. Staff currently
attempts to schedule inspections in close proximity to each other when
possible.
For a first time inspection involving a detached dwelling unit, staff
approximates a total of 1 hour to complete the process. Given this, staff’s assumption of being able
to complete 5 inspections per day (1150 per year) is reasonable.
Commissioner Riordan Request
On February 25, 2014, Commissioner Riordan requested that staff contact
other municipalities that enforce a rental licensing/inspection program in
order to obtain information on how other municipalities regulate their
programs. Commissioner Riordan provided staff a list of 10 suggested questions
and an eleventh question was added by staff. Staff provided a memorandum for
review on March 13, 2014 which was posted at http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/rental-registration-expansion-proposal.
Public Meeting of March 13,
2014
A public meeting was conducted on March 13, 2014 to explain Draft 4 and
receive public comment. Four of the five
Commissioners were in attendance and about 55 audience members were
present. Comments were mixed as to the
need for the city-wide program. Primary
issues presented by the audience on Draft 4 specifically included educating the
tenants as to the consent form process, making the housing standards clear, and
a desire to incorporate RS properties into the program.
Staff believes Draft 5, published a day after the public meeting,
addresses all of these matters.
Draft 5
Draft 5 is essentially Draft 4 but with the incorporation of RS zoned
properties. The following packet is a
comprehensive packet of the ordinance, administrative regulations, and all its
attachments that could be adopted by the City Commission to implement the
program.
Draft 5 packet:
·
Education
Material for Tenants
Other Considerations
The current proposal groups multiple properties owned by one owner
(individual, LLC, etc.) as one entity for the purpose of inspection
sampling. One issue that has surfaced is
how to process licenses where one owner may own multiple properties under
different LLCs. Because of the tiered
fee schedule and sampling size based on ownership, there are different outcomes
depending on how the Commission desires staff to view this matter.
The outcomes, by example, of either allowing multiple units owned by
separate LLCs under one license or requiring separate licenses for each LLC –
are as follows:
Sampling was originally intended to be applied only to large complexes
where a sampling would provide a good measure of how a specific location was
being maintained. In reaction to stakeholder input, the idea was expanded to
ownership regardless of size of complex or location. Staff assumes that many
times different partners will own different LLCs and so establishing a primary
owner would be an arduous task for staff to complete. Also, the task of tracking this issue from a
staff viewpoint, given that properties sell and corporation names can change
frequently could lead to confusion and record keeping errors. It is much more efficient to view each LLC as
a separate owner for tracking purposes.
Staff recommends that separate LLCs be counted separately for the
purposes of implementing Ordinance No. 8840.
Action Requested
Adopt Ordinance 8840 and the Administrative Regulations, if
appropriate.